In re Tupper

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Tupper

270 A.2d 11, 57 N.J. 94, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 184

DecidedOctober 26, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.2d 11 (In re Tupper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Tupper, 270 A.2d 11, 57 N.J. 94, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 184 (N.J. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent pled guilty to an indictment charging him with the fraudulent issuance of a bad check in violation of N. J. S. A. 2A:111 — 15. He was sentenced to a term of six months, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for one year, restitution to be made within that period.

[95]*95Respondent issued the check in the sum of $1,878.11 on a C.O.D. delivery knowing the bank balance was and would remain insufficient. The transaction was not related to the practice of law, but nonetheless it does reflect upon respondent’s professional fitness. We have weighed all the considerations respondent advances as extenuating. Under all the circumstances, a suspension of one year from the practice of law is required and it is so ordered.

For suspension for one year — -Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 7.

Opposed• — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Respondent pled guilty to an indictment charging him with the fraudulent issuance of a bad check in violation of N. J. S. A. 2A:111 — 15. He was sentenced to a term of six months, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for one year, restitution to be made within that period.

[95]*95Respondent issued the check in the sum of $1,878.11 on a C.O.D. delivery knowing the bank balance was and would remain insufficient. The transaction was not related to the practice of law, but nonetheless it does reflect upon respondent’s professional fitness. We have weighed all the considerations respondent advances as extenuating. Under all the circumstances, a suspension of one year from the practice of law is required and it is so ordered.

For suspension for one year — -Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 7.

Opposed• — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.2d 11, 57 N.J. 94, 1970 N.J. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tupper-nj-1970.